NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY072025_01B52032025-05-07 · motion_reconsider

This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.

The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in healthcare and life sciences, proposed a business venture supported by a business plan and economic impact projections, which he argued would address a national shortage of skilled life science professionals.

Field: healthcare and life sciences · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “we conducted a complete and accurate analysis of the proposed endeavor's business plan in dismissing his appeal”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “we provided a complete and accurate analysis of the recommendation letter and the economic analysis in dismissing the Petitioner's first combined motion”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “we provided a complete and accurate analysis of the recommendation letter and the economic analysis in dismissing the Petitioner's first combined motion”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “a motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior Board decision”
    AAO decision text

This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

This is a fourth-round decision (appeal, combined motion, second motion to reopen, now motion to reconsider) that is purely procedural: the AAO declines to re-analyze the Dhanasar prongs on the merits, instead holding that the Petitioner merely rearged prior contentions and that the scope of review is limited to the immediately prior decision. The AAO also rejected the Petitioner's argument that USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(4) creates separate evidentiary criteria for entrepreneurs, clarifying it only guides application of the Dhanasar framework. No fresh prong-by-prong merits analysis occurs in this text.

Authorities this decision leans on

From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.

  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
  • Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer